I Diagram. In all such circumstances, the designation of specific properties must <br />2 be determined based on the Metro Plan Diagram, and there may be no <br />3 straightforward way to do so. <br />4 Because the Metro Plan Diagram is now digitized, and the depicted plan <br />5 boundaries are sharper than in previous versions, the problem may not be as <br />6 difficult to solve as petitioners fear. It may be possible to scale up the digital <br />7 version of the map, overlay it with property lines from a digital database, and <br />8 determine the precise plan designation boundaries on the subject property with <br />9 reasonable accuracy. If for some reason that is not possible, the city and <br />10 petitioner will have to do the best they can with the tools at their disposal. <br />11 In sum, we disagree with petitioners that the holding in Knutson controls <br />12 the present case. The 1982 Laurel Hill Refinement Plan map is not property <br />13 specific and does not include useful information regarding the plan designation <br />14 of the entire subject property. To the extent the refinement plan map can be <br />15 understood to indicate that the subject property proposed for rezoning to R-1 is <br />16 entirely designated LDR, the refinement plan map conflicts with the 2004 <br />17 Metro Plan Diagram, which includes sufficient referents to allow the city to <br />18 determine that some portion of the subject property is designated POS. <br />19 Accordingly, petitioner's assignment of error is denied. <br />20 The city's decision is affirmed. <br />Page 21 <br />Laurel Ridge Record (Z 15-5) Page 1059 <br />